Faction Lock? Really? Again?

Ranger209

ellahellabella wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

making a 30 day choice has consequences, both good and bad.
but that's the way it should be, no one should be able to alter their faction choice until after the campaign has ended, the results of your choice may have been good or may have been bad, none the less it was a choice and should be stayed with untill the 30 days has expired.

Except the PvP population is small on PC/NA especially in oceanic hours and now we're screwed and can't go find fights if our faction is zerging the map because that's what faction rp pugs do.

So our option is to sit on a dead campaign?

Also it's an absolute rip-off from a customer POV. I've spent good money race-changing and other things for my other faction characters, and now I can't play them because I'm not playing in a dead campaign during oceanic, which barely holds any pop as is in the current 30-day. What makes you all think it's going to magically go up? There's only just enough pop in the 30-day in off-hours, barely any in oceanic, and massive lag zergs in primetime. So, tell me, besides rare times on the weekends, where the PvP gonna be? The main camp, obviously.

Nah faction rpers are the most selfish PvPers in this game. Good job, all.

^^^ALL THE BOLD^^^ Oceanic is a thing you Rping Americans! Get off my throat please

And what makes Oceanic/Asiatic people more important than American's that they should get their way? What makes the limited amount of people who can't fill the server up more important than the majority of people who can fill the server up. What makes the rping faction swappers who think they are "faction saviors" or "invincible awesomesauce" more important than the rping faction loyalists that want the 3 banner war to mean something the way it was designed and intended?

You guys had the opportunity for years to split up among the factions and fight each other, you know find "good fights", but rather than that you decided rolling the map was more fun against npc's. Guess what though, there will still be a server where you can continue to play that way, or you can play the faction lock campaign and continue to roll the map like the majority of people who play during those hours always have, and then that can be dealt with later with future improvements to the 3 banner war that limits the impact of that behavior.

The 3 banner war is supposed to be something that is bigger than any individual or small group of people. It's not about you, or me, or someone else, or some small group of people, it is large scale. It is supposed to be AvAvA not small scale or 1vX. You can do those things in AvAvA, but the primary impetus for Cyrodiil is AvAvA siege warfare. That is what it was designed for and that is how it was intended to be experienced, and a lot of people would like to see it return to its roots.

DisgracefulMind

Ranger209 wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

making a 30 day choice has consequences, both good and bad.
but that's the way it should be, no one should be able to alter their faction choice until after the campaign has ended, the results of your choice may have been good or may have been bad, none the less it was a choice and should be stayed with untill the 30 days has expired.

Except the PvP population is small on PC/NA especially in oceanic hours and now we're screwed and can't go find fights if our faction is zerging the map because that's what faction rp pugs do.

So our option is to sit on a dead campaign?

Also it's an absolute rip-off from a customer POV. I've spent good money race-changing and other things for my other faction characters, and now I can't play them because I'm not playing in a dead campaign during oceanic, which barely holds any pop as is in the current 30-day. What makes you all think it's going to magically go up? There's only just enough pop in the 30-day in off-hours, barely any in oceanic, and massive lag zergs in primetime. So, tell me, besides rare times on the weekends, where the PvP gonna be? The main camp, obviously.

Nah faction rpers are the most selfish PvPers in this game. Good job, all.

^^^ALL THE BOLD^^^ Oceanic is a thing you Rping Americans! Get off my throat please

And what makes Oceanic/Asiatic people more important than American's that they should get their way? What makes the limited amount of people who can't fill the server up more important than the majority of people who can fill the server up. What makes the rping faction swappers who think they are "faction saviors" or "invincible awesomesauce" more important than the rping faction loyalists that want the 3 banner war to mean something the way it was designed and intended?

You guys had the opportunity for years to split up among the factions and fight each other, you know find "good fights", but rather than that you decided rolling the map was more fun against npc's. Guess what though, there will still be a server where you can continue to play that way, or you can play the faction lock campaign and continue to roll the map like the majority of people who play during those hours always have, and then that can be dealt with later with future improvements to the 3 banner war that limits the impact of that behavior.

The 3 banner war is supposed to be something that is bigger than any individual or small group of people. It's not about you, or me, or someone else, or some small group of people, it is large scale. It is supposed to be AvAvA not small scale or 1vX. You can do those things in AvAvA, but the primary impetus for Cyrodiil is AvAvA siege warfare. That is what it was designed for and that is how it was intended to be experienced, and a lot of people would like to see it return to its roots.

No one is saying that oceanic is more important, we're asking that oceanic be even considered, for once. There is no "choice" for oceanic players to play in oceanic...THEY LITERALLY LIVE IN THAT TIMEZONE. And you assume all oceanic players are rolling together in ball groups? You obviously have no experience with oceanic players so why are you even commenting on them?

And for ESO's PvP community to keep hanging on, there needs to be care taken with every playstyle, not just faction loyalists' way of playing. Large scale, medium scale, small scale is all important. Faction hopping is important for small scale, it's how we find fights, it's how a lot of people play. So a lot of people play your way and a lot of people play my way, what makes you more important? Shouldn't we both be getting appeased by ZoS and having our PvP community brought together?

Ranger209

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

It makes no sense that people are going to play in the 7-day because, let's be real, most people want to play the 30 day and still get their crystals at the end of it. They're not going to want to play the 7-day. They've NEVER wanted to play the 7-day.

Those people that want to get their crystals will have to play the 7 day as that is the only way they can get their crystals. This should boost the population of the 7 day while diminishing the population of the 30 day just for this simple fact. ZOS has the data, it apparently leans the way they are leaning. If what you say is true and people don't like the 7 day because it is 7 days, then the obvious solution is to not have a 7 day, but rather make them all 30 day and allow faction swapping on one of those 30 day campaigns. I am assuming the data does not speak to this, but I don't know it was also stated that they wanted to split the population among all the servers. This would seem to be a way to do that if that is one of their goals with this change.

zyk

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Sorry, *faction loyalists. (you can @ me next time you'd like to throw some shade, I'm fine with it, we can talk this out just an fyi)

It wasn't shade and it wasn't directed at you. Lots of people have posted the same whenever the topic comes up. Roleplayers take a lot of crap without doing any harm. It's kind of ironic, considering roleplayers were the ones who spearheaded this genre. (I don't rp btw)

It is preference, sure, but this game has allowed us to play how we want to (faction hopping to play with other friends and find more outnumbered fights included) for years now. To suddenly take it away isn't going to help anything in PvP. PvP, besides primetime, isn't exactly thriving. So what is this accomplishing?

I agree that's crappy and I've posted as much in the past. I think it would have been wrong to take away the option for multi-faction play completely after opening the door to it.

On the other hand, even though there were loopholes, the game was designed with locks in mind and it was actually considered to be a feature to some. It can also be said it was crappy that this feature was never properly implemented and then removed before it could be.

I think ZOS has given us a fair compromise. I think longer campaigns synergize with commitment, so it's logical that the CP 30 day campaign is locked. For players who don't want to commit to one team and/or don't care about the outcome of the scoreboard, what difference does it make how long the campaign is?

If the unlocked campaign will be dead like some claim, I think it would be reasonable to conclude most players do not want that and vice versa.

DisgracefulMind

zyk wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Sorry, *faction loyalists. (you can @ me next time you'd like to throw some shade, I'm fine with it, we can talk this out just an fyi)

It wasn't shade and it wasn't directed at you. Lots of people have posted the same whenever the topic comes up. Roleplayers take a lot of crap without doing any harm. It's kind of ironic, considering roleplayers were the ones who spearheaded this genre. (I don't rp btw)

It is preference, sure, but this game has allowed us to play how we want to (faction hopping to play with other friends and find more outnumbered fights included) for years now. To suddenly take it away isn't going to help anything in PvP. PvP, besides primetime, isn't exactly thriving. So what is this accomplishing?

I agree that's crappy and I've posted as much in the past. I think it would have been wrong to take away the option for multi-faction play completely after opening the door to it.

On the other hand, even though there were loopholes, the game was designed with locks in mind and it was actually considered to be a feature to some. It can also be said it was crappy that this feature was never properly implemented and then removed before it could be.

I think ZOS has given us a fair compromise. I think longer campaigns synergize with commitment, so it's logical that the CP 30 day campaign is locked. For players who don't want to commit to one team and/or don't care about the outcome of the scoreboard, what difference does it make how long the campaign is?

If the unlocked campaign will be dead like some claim, I think it would be reasonable to conclude most players do not want that and vice versa.

I actually enjoy rpers and have roleplaying friends, I'm not insulting them. I'm just greatly annoyed that most faction loyalty arguments have come with very...."immersive" reasoning. So no offense to rpers, I think they're valid voices.

I just think their approach to this is bad. Really bad. There isn't good population on multiple servers, and the people who aren't even faction loyal are going to be forced into being so anyways because we're going to want to go find fights. It just puts a disgusting divide down, and it's painful to see that happen - I play with people and have for years across all three factions.

I highly doubt we're going to see some sudden increase in numbers, currently PvP on Vivec isn't populated in off-hours, pop-locked in primetime, and very low pop in oceanic. This doesn't bode well with the idea that we're somehow going to see any result in the 7-day campaigns from faction locking. As I said, we'll still grit our teeth and end up locking in our faction because we want to PvP, it's just unjust we're being forced to do so.

I do see some of the reasoning behind wanting faction locks, and maybe if this game had a more healthy amount of players, it would be good. But the truth is...that's just not the case.

Merlight

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Do I hop between campaigns to be on the winning side?
No! Why would I? I play for fun - not some fleeting victory that I had no inluence on because of so many players involved.

Good for you, but there are many players who do exactly that. And they're obviously more numerous than your kind, otherwise the population would naturally balance itself.

MipMip wrote: »

(and no, having Shor, an often low population campaign even in prime time is not a replacement)

If there are enough people not wanting to play on faction-locked campaign, shouldn't Shor become highly populated?
And if only a few people switch to faction-hopping campaign, they're acceptable losses for ZOS.

DisgracefulMind

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

It makes no sense that people are going to play in the 7-day because, let's be real, most people want to play the 30 day and still get their crystals at the end of it. They're not going to want to play the 7-day. They've NEVER wanted to play the 7-day.

Those people that want to get their crystals will have to play the 7 day as that is the only way they can get their crystals. This should boost the population of the 7 day while diminishing the population of the 30 day just for this simple fact. ZOS has the data, it apparently leans the way they are leaning. If what you say is true and people don't like the 7 day because it is 7 days, then the obvious solution is to not have a 7 day, but rather make them all 30 day and allow faction swapping on one of those 30 day campaigns. I am assuming the data does not speak to this, but I don't know it was also stated that they wanted to split the population among all the servers. This would seem to be a way to do that if that is one of their goals with this change.

I'm not saying this is all about crystals, it's not. What I'm saying is that most people will still play the 30-day because they do want their rewards at the end of it, which is directly forcing people into faction locking.

Over ESO's history of dwindling PvP population, from my experience over 5 years on PC/NA, players very, very rarely choose the 7-day campaign, and faction lock won't change this. The 7-day will stay dead, I'm almost sure of it. The faction hoppers want PvP too, so we'll play the 30-day, it's just sad that we're cut off completely from playing with friends or fighting for the outnumbered side unless we want a lower populated campaign.

EDIT:
I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

DisgracefulMind

Merlight wrote: »

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Do I hop between campaigns to be on the winning side?
No! Why would I? I play for fun - not some fleeting victory that I had no inluence on because of so many players involved.

Good for you, but there are many players who do exactly that. And they're obviously more numerous than your kind, otherwise the population would naturally balance itself.

MipMip wrote: »

(and no, having Shor, an often low population campaign even in prime time is not a replacement)

If there are enough people not wanting to play on faction-locked campaign, shouldn't Shor become highly populated?
And if only a few people switch to faction-hopping campaign, they're acceptable losses for ZOS.

There isn't enough of an active population to not suck it up and play the 30-day though. That's the problem. If there was a healthy PvP population, sure, bring the locks, but there's not.

frostz417

This only cateres to obnoxious toxic faction loyalist who cry that people play other factions.
Their arguments are empty and full of fallacies.
They have this mindset that everyone who’ plays different factions only play on the winning side. When in reality that’s a small percentage of the PvP population.
Pve’ers who go into vivec to get gems get screwed over by this change.
Casuals who want gems get screwed over
Cross factional players who just want to play for kills and couldn’t give a rats ass about the score get screwed over.
Who doesn’t get screwed over?
Trolls, spies, and toxic faction loyalist.
I really want to know what the thought process behind this idea was.
“Person 1:
Okay guys there’s at least a hundred game breaking bugs and issues that need to be fixed... what should we do?
Person 2: errrrr let’s cater to 1 small group and screw everyone else over and introduce faction lock further screwing over pve’ers and everyone else while catering to cry baby faction loyalists.
Person 1: that’s a fantastic idea!! Forget about the real issues this one is priority!!”

Ranger209

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

It makes no sense that people are going to play in the 7-day because, let's be real, most people want to play the 30 day and still get their crystals at the end of it. They're not going to want to play the 7-day. They've NEVER wanted to play the 7-day.

Those people that want to get their crystals will have to play the 7 day as that is the only way they can get their crystals. This should boost the population of the 7 day while diminishing the population of the 30 day just for this simple fact. ZOS has the data, it apparently leans the way they are leaning. If what you say is true and people don't like the 7 day because it is 7 days, then the obvious solution is to not have a 7 day, but rather make them all 30 day and allow faction swapping on one of those 30 day campaigns. I am assuming the data does not speak to this, but I don't know it was also stated that they wanted to split the population among all the servers. This would seem to be a way to do that if that is one of their goals with this change.

I'm not saying this is all about crystals, it's not. What I'm saying is that most people will still play the 30-day because they do want their rewards at the end of it, which is directly forcing people into faction locking.

Over ESO's history of dwindling PvP population, from my experience over 5 years on PC/NA, players very, very rarely choose the 7-day campaign, and faction lock won't change this. The 7-day will stay dead, I'm almost sure of it. The faction hoppers want PvP too, so we'll play the 30-day, it's just sad that we're cut off completely from playing with friends or fighting for the outnumbered side unless we want a lower populated campaign.

EDIT:
I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

MipMip

Ranger209 wrote: »

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

A much better way would be to introduce a new faction locked campaign for those who would like to play that way, instead of locking the main campaigns.

Merlight

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

Remember back in 2014 when they cut the number of campaigns from 10 to 5? We told them EU had too many players to fit in 4 vet campaigns; they went ahead and cut the same number on both servers anyway, locking hundreds of players out of PvP. Now with only a fraction of that population remaining, I doubt they'll bother making different rules for EU.

Trinity_Is_My_Name

Well, I guess once it happens the Forum will be full of "Faction Lock!! Who Thought Of This?!?!"

Merlight

MipMip wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

A much better way would be to introduce a new faction locked campaign for those who would like to play that way, instead of locking the main campaigns.

They want to "fix" player behaviour (hopping to winning faction). If they just let them continue doing it on the old campaign, it wouldn't fix much. Hence a forced change -- if you're doing what they don't want you to be doing, you have to either change behaviour, or change campaign.

Kikke

For the AP farmers, Go shor. The Big Boy campaigns are now for true cyrdilll PvP instead of the AP grind it's been the last couple years.

Bring back faction loyalty, faction pride and proper map fighting.

Bogdan_Kobzar

Faction Lock, AWESOME!!!!!
I tried playing in Cyrodiil way back when in 2014-2015, I was part of a guild that did PvP in Cyrodiil (which back then they were faction specific guilds) gave Cyrodiil up because zergling guilds started monopolizing the various campaigns and I couldn't be bothered with the politics. So, in November of 2018 (midyear mayhem event) I tried PvP again in the under 50 Kyne campaign (which was promoted as the NOVICE learning campaign in several of the guilds). It was very enjoyable, learning faction vs faction strategies, epic keep battles, even the enemy players sent tells of how enjoyably challenging it was, whether they won or lost the battle. I even would up with finally having one character out of my now 15 with the title 'emperor' thanks to a guild whose purpose was to help novice players learn faction vs faction PvP (this guild has strict rules for no spying between factions and only groups as a single faction in a specific campaign).
This lasted for about a month or two, until certain guild or three started to monopolize the map, switching characters between two factions to flip flop the map. The under 50 campaign is NOT for the novice player, It has become nothing more than an AP farming commodity. These guild players are very skilled with their vet characters in the CP900+ range continuously re-rolling characters for the Kyne under 50 campaign using their stockpile of gold gear for every 4 levels (gold weapons every 2 levels) up to level 49 (including Trial Set gear). These top players were scoring 2-4 million AP per week, now that's alot of gold to be made selling gear in their guild vendor's.
Faction lock will stop this and hopefully make the under 50 campaign novice friendly again. (and I do not want to hear the "gitgud" or "l2p" comments, as I am challenged with being able to be dexterous enough to animation cancel and or attack weave)
If a player wants to have a character in each of the three factions for a specific campaign, they will just need to have additional accounts. Most of the players already have multiple accounts and the community KNOWS them by their several account @names.
But then again, this is only my opinion.

vamp_emily

I love playing with faction loyal players but I personally think they should keep it the same as it is now but create a campaign for the loyal with very strict rules and some nice rewards.

I really wish they would work on fixing population gaps before locking campaigns. I think population gaps, in most campaigns, are the biggest issue. Maybe merge some campaigns together?

This change will not affect me at all. I mostly play on DC but I have characters on other accounts that are AD/EP. Even if they locked it by ip address, I wouldn't have a problem because I would just play on DC.

DisgracefulMind

Merlight wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

Remember back in 2014 when they cut the number of campaigns from 10 to 5? We told them EU had too many players to fit in 4 vet campaigns; they went ahead and cut the same number on both servers anyway, locking hundreds of players out of PvP. Now with only a fraction of that population remaining, I doubt they'll bother making different rules for EU.

Oh I know they won't do it, it's just hopeful wishing.

DisgracefulMind

Kikke wrote: »

For the AP farmers, Go shor. The Big Boy campaigns are now for true cyrdilll PvP instead of the AP grind it's been the last couple years.

Bring back faction loyalty, faction pride and proper map fighting.

Why are we all AP farmers? I don't need AP, I want fights. I have 30mil AP on my account, I have no use for it. I want good PvP, as do almost all the other passionate faction hoppers.

Good fights to you and in your opinion are map fights, good fights to me and in my opinion as solid open world fights. Both are important, both are legitimate.

DisgracefulMind

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

It makes no sense that people are going to play in the 7-day because, let's be real, most people want to play the 30 day and still get their crystals at the end of it. They're not going to want to play the 7-day. They've NEVER wanted to play the 7-day.

Those people that want to get their crystals will have to play the 7 day as that is the only way they can get their crystals. This should boost the population of the 7 day while diminishing the population of the 30 day just for this simple fact. ZOS has the data, it apparently leans the way they are leaning. If what you say is true and people don't like the 7 day because it is 7 days, then the obvious solution is to not have a 7 day, but rather make them all 30 day and allow faction swapping on one of those 30 day campaigns. I am assuming the data does not speak to this, but I don't know it was also stated that they wanted to split the population among all the servers. This would seem to be a way to do that if that is one of their goals with this change.

I'm not saying this is all about crystals, it's not. What I'm saying is that most people will still play the 30-day because they do want their rewards at the end of it, which is directly forcing people into faction locking.

Over ESO's history of dwindling PvP population, from my experience over 5 years on PC/NA, players very, very rarely choose the 7-day campaign, and faction lock won't change this. The 7-day will stay dead, I'm almost sure of it. The faction hoppers want PvP too, so we'll play the 30-day, it's just sad that we're cut off completely from playing with friends or fighting for the outnumbered side unless we want a lower populated campaign.

EDIT:
I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

Which is why people who are faction hoppers are stating their opinions here and now, and will continue to, because this is a test that should not be implemented this far into a game's PvP that's already falling apart.

That being said, I hope it's a bad experiment.

Kikke

Rather, no faction locks were an attempt. it failed. now locks are back!

Katahdin

Bogdan_Kobzar wrote: »

If a player wants to have a character in each of the three factions for a specific campaign, they will just need to have additional accounts. Most of the players already have multiple accounts and the community KNOWS them by their several account @names.
But then again, this is only my opinion.

I have other accounts and a second computer at my desk on a different ISP than my main gaming computer.

I guarantee no one knows my alt accounts names besides ZoS.

I've never played in any guild setting in pvp with any of those accounts and the names are completely different and unrelated to my main account. I could easily use them to spy on any faction I wanted.

Sandman929

These threads are always have one of my favorite ESO contradictions. Rewards aren't good enough to promote faction loyalty and no one wants to go to 7 day because they want their rewards.
One faction locked campaign is all I really wanted, so I'm quite happy with the change if it happens. I don't care if the campaign is called Vivec or Shor or anything else, and I don't care if it's 7 or 30 day.
Right now I home the 30 day for the transmute crystals, but only play there long enough to get tier 1 and spend the rest of my time playing in Shor where, for the most part, lag isn't horrific.
Which brings up another classic ESO player issue...everyone hates prime time lag but no one wants to leave the overstuffed 30 day campaign to improve performance.

MipMip

Merlight wrote: »

MipMip wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

A much better way would be to introduce a new faction locked campaign for those who would like to play that way, instead of locking the main campaigns.

They want to "fix" player behaviour (hopping to winning faction). If they just let them continue doing it on the old campaign, it wouldn't fix much. Hence a forced change -- if you're doing what they don't want you to be doing, you have to either change behaviour, or change campaign.

Myself and most people I play with 'hop' not to winning factions but to underdog factions because that's were we can find more / better fights. Our objective is to have fun, but as a side effect our behavior contributes to balancing player populations, so I don't think there is anything in need of 'fixing' there

But as I said, if some people want to play in a faction locked campaign I think it would be best if a new campaign is created for them.

Defilted

Shor should be the only locked campaign. It is the shortest and therefore the best choice. All others should remain as they are now.

Diundriel

InvictusApollo wrote: »

When I first saw the faction lock threads I thought to myself: "don't worry - this idea is so bad that it will never be implemented".
And now ZOS is actually going to put faction lock? Again? It didn't work the first time!

Have faction lock advocates really ignored the obvious problems that this is going to introduce?

Faction lock will effectively delete almost two thirds of all pvp characters for everyone who prefers noCP! How?
There is going to be only one noCP campaign! This means that only one third of many peoples characters will be able to play in pvp.
I for example have 3 chars in AD, 3 in DC and 2 in EP. And I love playing them all in noCP campaign.

Do I hop between campaigns to be on the winning side?
No! Why would I? I play for fun - not some fleeting victory that I had no inluence on because of so many players involved.

Do I hop between campaings to troll, spy or grief?
No! Why would I? It's boring.

I have created characters on every alliance for two reasons:
1. Experience the three banners war from every side.
2. Play with all of my friends who happen to have only one or two chars that are pvp ready.

With the faction lock I will be able to play with only 3 of my characters every month. CP is far too laggy for me to be even playable so if I were forced to play it, I would just turn off ESO and go play some other game (Overwatch for example). Even if I had better ping and actually could play CP, then still two or three of my characters would be effectively deleted from Cyrodill pvp.

And now the faction lock will have the following negative effects on me and every other player like me:
2. Completely prevent us from playing around two thirds of our characters if we prefer the noCP or CP campaign only.
3. Completely prevent us from playing around one third of our characters if we do not have preference on CP.
4. Prevent us from playing with many of our friends who happen to have pvp ready characters in other alliances.
5. Increase queue time on CP campaings since many players from noCP campaings will go there to play some of their characters that are locked our from noCP campaign.
6. Increase hatred between players of different alliances since faction lock will enforce alliance identity.
7. Decreasing overall monthly transmute crystals yield from tier one rewards since not all characters will be able to get them.
8. Making Cyrodill literally unplayable for anyone who wants some challenge and finds himself in a faction that is dominating.
9. Almost completely preventing people from playing in their favourite campaing if it is at maximum population capacity. Now we can just queue on another character. With faction lock we will either have to wait an hour to play or leave the game completely and play sth else.
10. Making some factions have significant numbers advantage untill the end of campaing. If for some reason one faction happens to have significantly less people than the others then that faction will be in constant disadvantage untill the end of the campaing.
11. Guilds will be literally able to choose the winning side just by grouping up to all queue on one campaing and on the same side. Some guilds care only about APs and they will gladly work with other like minded guilds to choose the dominant alliance and farm as many AP and rewards as possible.

All of these problems and probably even more that I haven't thought of and for what?
To reduce trolling?
Trolls troll because they like to troll. Those that want to troll will still do it without even batting an eye on their impact on the alliance end score. They will just troll in their home campaigns.

To reduce spying?
People who do not care about the score will still spy for their friends.

PvP for many people is the endgame - the thing they do when they have finished every single trial and dungeons so many times that they are too bored to play them.
With faction lock many people will stop playing pvp. And that means less eso+ subscriptions -> lower playerbase -> less money for game content, development and improvement.

And we can't solve all these issues just by introducing more campaings. The more campaings there are the greater chance that some of them will be dead.

tthanks that you made the effort to list all the negate Points up.
I donno, but this kinda reminds me of [snip] : first they introduce faction swop, then they vote to leave it and in 25 years they wanna come back guaranteed xD

[Edit for politics.]

InvictusApollo

Bogdan_Kobzar wrote: »

If a player wants to have a character in each of the three factions for a specific campaign, they will just need to have additional accounts. Most of the players already have multiple accounts and the community KNOWS them by their several account @names.

Yeah sure. Lets just delete over half of my characters that I have spent countless of hours leveling up and gearing and make me buy this game two times more so that I could just play with my friends. What an awesome idea you got there.

Ranger209

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

It makes no sense that people are going to play in the 7-day because, let's be real, most people want to play the 30 day and still get their crystals at the end of it. They're not going to want to play the 7-day. They've NEVER wanted to play the 7-day.

Those people that want to get their crystals will have to play the 7 day as that is the only way they can get their crystals. This should boost the population of the 7 day while diminishing the population of the 30 day just for this simple fact. ZOS has the data, it apparently leans the way they are leaning. If what you say is true and people don't like the 7 day because it is 7 days, then the obvious solution is to not have a 7 day, but rather make them all 30 day and allow faction swapping on one of those 30 day campaigns. I am assuming the data does not speak to this, but I don't know it was also stated that they wanted to split the population among all the servers. This would seem to be a way to do that if that is one of their goals with this change.

I'm not saying this is all about crystals, it's not. What I'm saying is that most people will still play the 30-day because they do want their rewards at the end of it, which is directly forcing people into faction locking.

Over ESO's history of dwindling PvP population, from my experience over 5 years on PC/NA, players very, very rarely choose the 7-day campaign, and faction lock won't change this. The 7-day will stay dead, I'm almost sure of it. The faction hoppers want PvP too, so we'll play the 30-day, it's just sad that we're cut off completely from playing with friends or fighting for the outnumbered side unless we want a lower populated campaign.

EDIT:
I think they should do a test with locks before they implement it, personally. And per server. Because PC/NA is vastly different from PC/EU, and onwards.

They have stated that this whole thing is experimental. We will see how it shakes out or if there is a better way to appease both sides of this equation. So really consider this whole thing a test.

Which is why people who are faction hoppers are stating their opinions here and now, and will continue to, because this is a test that should not be implemented this far into a game's PvP that's already falling apart.

That being said, I hope it's a bad experiment.

If faction hoppers really want to make a statement then they should all join the 7 day ffa campaign so that their collective voice may be heard when the new campaigns are rolled out with Elswyr. Doing anything other than that only reinforces the faction locked campaigns. That will be their chance to really voice an opinion and show their numbers.

Tommy_The_Gun

TBH. If faction hoppers only care about AP, then if they all go to Shor, then they will be able to "paint" the map Yellow -> Blue -> Red -> (repeat), making tons of AP much faster...

Merlight

MipMip wrote: »

Myself and most people I play with 'hop' not to winning factions but to underdog factions because that's were we can find more / better fights. Our objective is to have fun, but as a side effect our behavior contributes to balancing player populations, so I don't think there is anything in need of 'fixing' there

I did not say your behaviour needs 'fixing'. You say you contribute to balancing player populations. Would you agree that allowing players to hop to the winning faction, and giving them extra rewards for such dimwit move, contributes to population imbalance?